Lazio Vs Napoli [0–2] – Serie A 2025/2026: How Antonio Conte Tactics Exploited Structural Flaws – Tactical Analysis

Lazio hosted Napoli at the Stadio Olimpico in Rome, and the game ended with a convincing 0-2 away win for the Partenopei, keeping them on track to challenge for the Serie A title.

With this win, Napoli keep chasing both AC Milan and Inter Milan, who are above them, Milan with a one-point lead and Inter Milan with a two-point lead.

Therefore, beating Lazio was crucial for Napoli to keep disturbing the top two teams and to make them capable of stealing the lead in the standings if both fail to win their upcoming games.

On the other hand, the home loss aggravates Lazio’s issues and puts them in the ninth spot, already six points away from a European spot.

This means that Lazio are in urgent need of points to finish the season in a higher position, especially if they seriously plan to play in Europe next season.

Things are getting very difficult for them at this point, given that the competition for those spots is already fierce, with teams like Atalanta, Bologna, and Como battling for the sixth and fifth spots, currently held by Roma.

Therefore, Lazio will need to start putting on convincing performances to build winning streaks and join the race for one of those spots; otherwise, it will be very difficult for them to even secure the sixth spot in the end.

In this tactical analysis article, the focus will be on Lazio’s player selection issues, the striker dilemma, defensive errors, and what needs to be fixed.

Lazio Vs Napoli Lineups & Formations

Maurizio Sarri started the match using his preferred 4-3-3 formation, with Ivan Provedel as goalkeeper, Adam Marušić as right-back, Mario Gila and Alessio Romagnoli as centre-backs, and Luca Pellegrini as left-back.

The midfield line was made up of Danilo Cataldi, Mattéo Guendouzi, and Toma Bašić.

Upfront, the attacking line was composed of Matteo Cancellieri and Mattia Zaccagni as wingers, with Tijjani Noslin as the team’s main striker, given that Valentín Castellanos recently left the club.

On the other hand, Antonio Conte started the match in a 3-4-3 formation, with Vanja Milinković-Savić as goalkeeper and a defensive line of Juan Jesus, Amir Rrahmani, and Giovanni Di Lorenzo.

The midfield was composed of Stanislav Lobotka and Scott McTominay as central midfielders, Leonardo Spinazzola and Matteo Politano as wing-backs, with David Neres and Eljif Elmas as wingers, and Rasmus Højlund as the main striker.

Lazio Zonal Marking Issues & Attacking Problems

Lazio started the game against Napoli without the effective, aggressive high pressing needed on Napoli’s ball holders, while Napoli were extremely organised, disciplined, and aggressive on every ball/pass.

This made the difference for Napoli as it enabled them to win more duels and create more goal-scoring situations for themselves.

More importantly, Napoli knew how to deal with their high recoveries in order to convert them into goal-scoring opportunities, whereas Lazio failed to make use of their recoveries.

The main issue for Lazio was their lack of attacking depth in this match, with the absence of Castellanos, recently sold to West Ham United, and the reliance on Noslin, who did not provide the needed depth.

Noslin still lacks the characteristics and potential of a proper striker, as he was developed as a winger and does not yet have the physical abilities or the mindset of a striker.

And if Lazio are planning to rely on him as a striker, they should have worked with him extensively during the summer to adapt him to the new role and help him learn the necessary movements and roles on the pitch for such a crucial position.

This also raises many questions about the decision to sell a key striker like Castellanos, especially without replacing him with a proper striker.

It is true that Lazio are rumoured to be actually looking for a new striker to sign during the winter transfer window, but this does not explain the fact that the club risked more than two Serie A games without a real striker, while deciding to let their only striker leave before they could find a replacement.

The club has indirectly contributed to the team losing the match against Napoli.

It will most likely contribute to the upcoming results against Fiorentina and perhaps Hellas Verona too, given that they are forcing Sarri to use non-ideal players in the striker role to fill the position.

Although Lazio were unable to create many attacking chances due to a lack of attacking ideas and solutions against Napoli’s disciplined, intense defending, they got very close to equalising on a few occasions.

Still, they failed to convert those chances into goals.

Lazio Striker Dilemma

The following action highlights Lazio management’s crucial mistake in letting Castellanos go at the wrong time, before finding a replacement.

As Noslin was used as a striker, he was reactive enough to press high on Napoli’s defender and intercept the ball from him.

However, he was not able to handle the 1-v-1 with the goalkeeper, as he is not used to such scenarios inside the box.

Failing to lob the ball directly, deciding to dribble past the goalkeeper before realising he had closed the shooting angle for himself, then turning backwards and giving time for the goalkeeper to retreat and for Napoli’s defenders to retreat can only confirm that Noslin lacks the experience and reflexes for the striker role.

Although Noslin could have done better, even if he is not a proper striker, he is not the only one to blame in this action, as he was put in a situation he is not used to dealing with, since he is not a proper goalscorer.

Lazio Player Choices & Impact On Their Attacking Performance

Sarri also has a hand in his team’s attacking failure in this game, as his player choices for the front-three cannot be convincing enough.

Keeping an extremely useful yet dangerous winger like Gustav Isaksen on the bench and relying on the less experienced, slower, and less creative Cancellieri made Lazio’s attacking performance too predictable and easy for Napoli’s defence to defend against.

In fact, Sarri added to the striker issue by opting for the weaker choice on the right wing, which affected Lazio’s attacking performance and did not serve much in the defensive phase either (if Sarri’s choice was based on Cancellieri’s defensive input).

Lazio failed to create concrete threats apart from Noslin’s solo effort in the chance above and Isaksen’s chance that could have been better exploited.

The rest were desperate attempts or set-pieces that were not well-exploited, with the advantage in duels and aerial duels going to Napoli for most of the decisive actions.

In fact, one of the most dangerous attacking situations that Lazio created took place at the 75th minute when Isaksen made an inviting movement on the right wing and was served in space.

However, Isaksen did not deal well with the situation and failed to surpass Jesus despite having had the time and space to use body feints or dribbles to escape from him and find himself in front of the goal.

This was partly due to Isaksen being subbed in late in the game and having to quickly adapt to what was happening and its high tempo.

That was mainly what made him lose the duel against Jesus, who was better prepared and knew that Isaksen is more used to starting games and is not really a player accustomed to coming in from the bench and changing games.

Such details about players’ personalities and potential performances, when used from the start rather than during the game, can make the difference and impact teams’ attacking performances.

In this case, leaving Isaksen on the bench during a tough game against Napoli limited Lazio’s attacking solutions and added to their chance creation issues.

Lazio Marking Weaknesses

Lazio failed to defend well against Napoli, as the Azzurri applied aggressive high pressing on Lazio’s defensive line throughout the match, especially in the first half, causing them to lose the ball in their half so often.

Furthermore, Lazio failed to defend against Napoli’s very dangerous wing-backs and wingers, as it was difficult to mark the wing-backs, who advanced frequently and were very active in the attacking phase, while also having to mark the wingers, who played more centrally in this match.

Added to that, Højlund’s attacking input and his ability to block and disturb one or two defenders during each attack made things even more complicated for Lazio’s defence, even if they defended with five players.

Napoli’s reliance on wing-backs and wingers (in addition to central midfielders who regularly joined the final third) consistently created a lot of crossing situations and set-pieces, which Lazio conceded.

But unfortunately for them, they were unable to deal well with set-pieces and crosses due to their inefficient zonal-marking plan.

The zonal marking system used by Lazio failed to detect the arrival of Spinazzola from behind during the cross made by Politano from the right wing.

In fact, Lazio’s defending during this action reveals that not only was Spinazzola unmarked, but also that one of the most dangerous midfielders in Serie A, McTominay, was unmarked.

Leaving a regular goalscorer like McTominay completely unmarked cannot be considered an effective defensive tactic in such situations, even if zonal marking has its benefits.

Also, if the choice of Cancellieri instead of Isaksen was based on the Italian’s defensive input, then it is important to note that he failed in marking his direct opponent tightly in this action, as he gave him far too much space and looked unwilling to retreat and prevent Spinazzola from reaching the ball first.

Lazio Zonal Marking During Set-Pieces

The following picture looks very beautiful in terms of organisation from both sides ahead of the free-kick.

However, the organisation of Lazio’s players in a zonal, not a man-marking, defensive style revealed its weaknesses, especially in the execution of this system.

Lazio failed to mark their opponents tightly during this action as Napoli formed a “train” and made use of Lazio’s zonal marking to confuse them at the moment of execution of the free-kick to free a player from marking.

What was striking during this action was that Lazio’s players did not follow their direct opponents and were only looking at the ball, which largely prevented them from spotting Napoli’s plan to create space for Rrahmani.

This goal confirms that Lazio needs to revise their defending strategy for set-pieces and crosses by either enhancing or upgrading their passive zonal marking plan or switching to the man-marking system, which is becoming more effective and less risky for most teams.

Conclusion

Lazio had some reliable attacking weapons and preferred not to use them effectively, as explained above, which led to a very average performance on the attack.

At the same time, their defensive system failed to resist Napoli’s numerical superiority, as they attacked with more than five players on each attempt, and they also failed to stop Napoli’s threats from both wings.

Furthermore, their zonal marking during set-pieces and their defending against crosses need serious revision to avoid conceding goals in such situations in the coming games.